XENOBAROMETER: Ministers’ statements on R5-million visa rule weaponised against foreign traders

Anti-immigrant protesters seeking to intimidate traders and shut down foreign-owned shops across South Africa have repeatedly invoked a misleading claim amplified by at least two government ministers in 2024.

In October 2024, the deaths of six children in Soweto, initially thought to have been caused by consuming contaminated snacks bought from a spaza shop, triggered a government crackdown in Gauteng.

On 23 October 2024, Small Business Development Minister Stella Ndabeni-Abrahams told Parliament that “for you to be able to trade, the Immigration Act, section 15 says that you must at least invest a minimum of R5-million into the economy for you to get a business visa.” 

The claim, a version of which was repeated by Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, was reported in the news media.

While the claim was correct in regard to business visas, immigration lawyers agree that there are other legal ways for foreign nationals to operate businesses in South Africa.

Operation Dudula

Still, soon after Ndabeni-Abrahams’ statement, Operation Dudula started to argue that foreign owned businesses should not be allowed to operate if they had not invested R5-million into the economy. African Transformation Movement (ATM) then leader Vuyo Zungula repeated the claim multiple times in an interview with SABC News on spaza shop regulation in November 2024.

With anti-immigrant protests sweeping South Africa in 2026, the claim is again being used to target foreign businesses. In a video clip circulated widely online, protesters in Qonce confronted a Nigeria-born car wash owner. The businessman insists that he is documented. The confrontation in the video clip escalates nonetheless.

“We are here to tell you: according to Immigration Act 2002, sections 13, 15 and 19 you are not allowed to operate any kind of business, not unless you have a minimum investment of R5-million and above,” the interviewer says. 

“We are not asking you. You have to close this car wash now. It belongs to South Africa.”

The interviewer is seen holding a microphone with an eNCA logo and the clip was broadcast by eNCA in May 2026. The channel subsequently apologised for broadcasting the clip “without the requisite context or balance”. But, the apology did not clarify what context or balance was missing.

Politicians, protestors and news journalists have continued to amplify the R5-million “investment” claim.

For instance, in June, protesters reportedly forced the closure of foreign-owned shops in Lydenburg, Mpumalanga, demanding that their owners provide proof of a R5-million investment.

Also in June, Alfred Duma Municipality closed foreign-owned shops in a “compliance campaign”. The campaign included demands that foreign business owners provide proof of a R5-million investment, according to a telephonic interview with one shopkeeper. He asked not to be named due to safety concerns. 

Despite a KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court in Pietermaritzburg order that the municipality allow the shops to open, a Newzroom Afrika journalist questioned one of the applicants involved if they had invested R5-million.

Case law supports foreigners’ right to be self-employed

Nyiko Manyusa, an attorney with Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) specialising in immigration law, said the claim was a cynical distortion of the Immigration Act. 

The R5-million investment threshold was a requirement attached to certain business visa applications, he said. It did not apply automatically to every foreign national who operated a business in South Africa.

The right of refugees and asylum seekers to operate businesses in South Africa has been upheld by case law and the courts.

In 2012 the Somali Association of South Africa took the government to court over a crackdown on spaza shops in Limpopo.  

In 2014, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that there was “no blanket prohibition” preventing refugees and asylum seekers from engaging in self-employment. The court upheld the applicants’ ability to apply for and renew trading licences and found that Limpopo authorities’ actions in preventing them from trading on the basis of their immigration status were unlawful. Central to this judgment was affirming that the right to “seek employment” in Section 27 of the Refugees Act included self-employment.

Refugees do not have to invest R5-million

Liesl Fourie, an attorney at the Nelson Mandela University (NMU) Refugee Rights Centre in Gqeberha, agreed that lawful refugees and asylum seekers do not have to invest R5-million before they can operate businesses.

“The simple reason for that is that refugee and asylum seekers’ visas allow them to work in the country. They are allowed to operate a business, they are allowed to open a business and employ other people,” said Fourie. 

The same applied to foreign nationals holding certain special dispensation permits, such as the Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP) or Lesotho Exemption Permit (LEP), which, according to a December 2023 statement on their extension, allowed holders to “work, seek employment and conduct business in the Republic of South Africa”.

Fourie added that South Africa did not operate a refugee encampment system where asylum seekers were routinely provided with accommodation and basic necessities. Their access to social assistance was also limited, leaving many dependent on employment or small businesses to support themselves.

Uncertainty over amendments to the Refugees Act

In January 2020, amendments to the Refugees Act complicated matters. These introduced additional restrictions on asylum seekers’ rights to work and study, including requirements relating to permission from the Department of Home Affairs.

Some of these amendments, which restricted access to asylum procedures based on how or when applicants entered South Africa and whether they possessed certain immigration documents, were struck down by the Constitutional Court in July. It was this judgment which precipitated violent protests in Durban and Johannesburg in October. 

However, other provisions relating to asylum seekers’ “permission to work” had remained in place. 

These had not been enforced, said Fourie. She said this was because they were impractical and potentially even unconstitutional – particularly given that asylum seekers had limited access to financial support while waiting for their applications to be processed. 

“How are asylum seekers supposed to support themselves, waiting for a Refugee Appeals Authority (a statutory body that hears appeals against rejected asylum applications] hearing date, if they do not work?” she asked.

No response from ministers

Viewfinder submitted queries to Ndabeni-Abrahams and Ntshavheni, via their respective ministries. These asked that they clarify their 2024 statements – which implied that foreign nationals must invest R5-million before being allowed to operate businesses in South Africa.

Small Business Development Ministry communication officer Luyanda Mbalana acknowledged the query and committed to respond by Monday. No response had been received by the time of publication. The Ministry in the Presidency also did not respond. DM

XenoBarometer tracks the anti-immigrant movement and its impact. We aim to surface underreported stories, paying close attention to potential rights abuses, emerging patterns in anti-immigrant mobilisation and failures in the government’s response. It is produced by the Southern Africa Accountability Journalism Project (SA | AJP), an initiative of the Henry Nxumalo Foundation working with Viewfinder and with the financial assistance of the European Union. It can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the EU.